WILLisms.com: We Need An Exit Strategy For . . . Afghanistan?

« Sunday Heidi Weimaraner -- Update: 10 Months Old. | WILLisms.com | "The Sawdust Caesar Ends Up In The Gutter" »

We Need An Exit Strategy For . . . Afghanistan?

Multinational flags at ISAF in Kabul - courtesy of NATO photos.

This looks like a trifle on the surface, but it could be the tip of an ugly iceberg. At an upcoming NATO summit regarding Afghanistan, superpower Belgium is getting nervous and wants an exit strategy - and is rattling the nerves of some of the other participating nations.

"While heads of government are to make a show of unity over Afghanistan at tomorrow's alliance summit in Riga, Belgium's Defence Minister has questioned the future of Nato's most important mission."

Belgium has a whopping 246 soldiers stationed in Afghanistan:

Though Belgium only makes a small military contribution to the Nato mission, the Minister's comments will alarm senior figures at the alliance's headquarters where there is already concern that France is getting cold feet about its role in Afghanistan. Paris has remained publicly committed to the mission but Nato sources are concerned about the possibility of an eventual French withdrawal. They are pressing for an enhanced UN profile in Afghanistan to reassure the French who are suspicious about an expanded role for Nato because of Washington's hold over the alliance."

Is this the 'multilateralism' that the Democrats assured us was the cure for all diplomatic and military ills the world over? It seems that when the going gets tough (and it is getting tough in Afghanistan) and when we need them most of all, certain European partners can be counted on to cut and run. I wonder where they got the idea from. I suppose I could kinda sorta see Belgium giving up were it a coalition partner in Iraq. The defeaning drumbeats of defeat coming from the MSM has even shaken some erstwhile stalwart Republicans here in the U.S. But Afghanistan is the good war on terror, as opposed to the Halliburton quagmire of lies that is Iraq - and so it is disheartening to see coalition partners backing away from this far less controversial conflict. Are these francophonic jitters going to lead to wider fissures in the coalition, that eventually dooms Afghanis to another dark age under the Taliban?

Remember: a great many leftists such as Michael Moore and MoveOn.org were opposed even to the invasion of Afghanistan, insisting that the proper response to 9/11 should be self-flagellation. Keep an eye out to see whether Democrats will now begin pitching the usual excuses to cut and run from Afghanistan that they are using in Iraq, such as the war is 'unwinnable' and 'incompetently run'.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 27 November 2006 08:16 PM

Comments

Jeebus H. Chrysler.

Posted by: Ken S at November 27, 2006 08:31 PM

Ken, you are right on and this was predicted. Those defeatist democrats. It makes me upset. Well, the next 'poll' is two years away !

Posted by: Chief RZ at November 27, 2006 08:57 PM

great post. remember: the euroweenies couldn't defend themselves from hitler; only the UK and the USA fought back. and that was in their backyard.

they haven't changed: still mostly appeasers; cowards; anti-semites.

soon they will be muslim, too.

Posted by: reliapundit at November 27, 2006 10:05 PM

Reliapundit is absolutely right. Most European forces that are sent are not combat troops and their Rules of Engagement are to stay away from "hot" zones. You know who that leaves to do the actual fighting, right? The usual suspects. Even the British are losing their will to fight

Things were going well in Afghanistan until we foolishly turned over command to NATO a few months ago. Things have been in a downhill slide ever since. We are ALONE folks, in our ability to militarily defend anything.

Posted by: opine6 at November 30, 2006 11:17 AM